TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 918
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore. 2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is engaged in marketing and promotion of products of Dell Global GV (DGBV) in India and classified these services under the category of Business Auxiliary Service and considering these services as export of services, filed a rebate claim under Notification No. 11/2005-ST dated 19.04.2005 read with Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. These refund claims were rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the services undertaken by the appellant cannot be considered as export of services and the credit taken by the appellant was ineligible credit, hence, question of refund did not arise. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is in appeal before us. 3. The Learned Counsel subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that while deciding the rebate claim, the Revenue cannot dispute eligibility of cenvat credit as held by the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad Vs. Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd.: 2021-VIL-766-TEL-ST. The appellant also submits that the show-cause notice dated 21.10.2009 and 23.10.2009 which questioned the eligibility of cenvat credit was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 72/2010 dated 18.11.2010 and Order-in-Original No. 76/2010 dated 24.11.2010, respectively. Appeal filed against Order-in-Original No. 72/2010 was disposed of by this Honb'le Tribunal vide Final Order dated 03.12.2024 as withdrawn since the appellant had availed the benefit of SVLDR scheme and the Order-in-Original No. 76/2010 for the period Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons under the Export of Service Rules, 2005. It is not in dispute that Dell India provided the marketing support services to their foreign entities by identifying the prospective customers and in turn, the foreign entities sold their products to the customers in India. The Commissioner (A) in the impugned order observed that since the ultimate consumption of the products happened in India, they cannot be considered as Export of Service. This issue is no longer res integra in as much as the Larger Bench in the case of Arcelor Mittal Stainless (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST Mumbai (supra) in a similar set of facts observed as follows: "51. The reasoning adopted by the department is that the services of commission agent were used in India to c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2005 Export Rules prior to 1-3-2007 and Arcelor India provides services from India which are used outside India as is the requirement after 1-3-2007. It cannot, therefore, be doubted that Arcelor India provides 'export of service' as contemplated under rule 3 of the 2005 Export Rules; and II. Arcelor France is an agent of the foreign steel mills and Arcelor India is its sub-agent. Arcelor India provides the necessary details of the customers in India to the foreign steel mills and, thereafter, the foreign steel mills and the Indian customers execute a contract for supply of the goods. The goods are directly supplied by the foreign steel mills to the Indian customers. Arcelor India also satisfies condition (b) of rule 3(2) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed in creation of the export service. 1 2 3 4 5 b. Copies of the input services invoices along with the CENVAT credit statement and ledger extract of payment details. c. Copy of Service tax registration Certificate/Input Service Registration Nos of input service providers. d. Copy of the Registration Certificate has not been enclosed with the claim. e. Co-relation of FIRCs with Export Invoices and the ST-3 returns correlation with the export and the payment of service tax by CENVAT has not been done". And the second show-cause notice dated 18.08.2009 was issued on the following grounds: "5.8 In view of the above, it appears that....